Download free Adobe Reader software for PDF files.

Top

31 December 2006

Louisiana — 63% in-state spending. Louisiana has a hugh amount of LNG infrastructure and construction experience.

Maryland — 3% in-state spending. Maryland has more LNG infrastructure and construction experience than Maine.

Margaret Chase Smith/Downeast LNG — "72%" in-state spending. Maine has absolutely no LNG infrastructure, no construction company LNG experience, and yet Girdis claims they'll spend more in-state money on construction than Louisiana and Maryland.

Maine LNG project files for approval — Globe and Mail, Toronto, ON

Mr. Girgis said Canadian objections are fuelled by old-fashioned NIMBYism -- the so-called "not in my backyard" reaction that greets many major industrial projects -- and New Brunswick's desire to protect from competition an Irving Oil Ltd. LNG plant being built in Saint John.

I think it is a lot of NIMBYism and I think it is stronger because we're in the U.S. and they're in Canada," he said.

"Certainly, the feeling in Maine, among elected officials and the population at large, is that this is purely an attempt by the New Brunswick government to protect the Irving turf." (Dec 26)

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Girdis's statements show that he's willing to say anything to support his project. The Maine and New Brunswick Passamaquoddy Bay population at large, and for appropriate reasons, are opposed to siting heavy industry — and especially LNG — in Passamaquoddy Bay.

Any LNG terminal project in Passamaquoddy Bay would violate several Society of International Gast Terminal and Tanker Operators (SIGTTO) LNG-industry standards. Long into his local LNG project, Girdis proved his ignorance of those standards by stating that they were laws that didn't apply to LNG terminals — incorrect on two points: they're world-class LNG industry standards, not laws, and they apply specifically to LNG terminals. (See the FERC docket filing on the numerous SIGTTO violations that Downeast LNG's siting would commit.)

Downeast LNG's project — because of inherent site selection problems — will not pass Maine permitting requirements.

Had Girdis done his homework on LNG-industry standards and Maine permitting requirements prior to his project site selection, he'd have realized his eminently poor choice in selecting Passamaquoddy Bay. Girdis must realize that his standing as an international energy consultant may be diminished by his project's ultimate failure, and he's desperately attempting to make it appear that opposition to the project is unfounded. In actuality, Girdis has made a strategic error that cannot be rectified.

Top

22 December 2006

Letter from Dean — Downeast LNG Newsletter, Robbinston, ME

[The following link is to a four-page PDF file; 220 KB]

We have continued to meet with government officials in both the U.S. and Canada about our project and as this quote from a recent article in Canada’s Financial Post notes, we have support from the highest levels of our government:

“The dispute has quietly reached the highest political levels with Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State, and Sam Bodman, the Energy Secretary, getting involved. Both Ms. Rice and Mr. Bodman have told Canada it is illegal for it to try to prevent ships from entering a U.S. port. Privately, State Department officials told the Financial Post they believe the issue is all about “domestic politics.” (LNG: The Great Divide, Financial Post, November 18, 2006)

(December issue)

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Downeast LNG President Dean Girdis fails to disclose in his message is that the quoted Financial Post article was written by a paid lobbyist employed by Downeast LNG — hardly a credible source of truth and journalism.

See Yellow Wood Associate's response to Downeast LNG's newsletter.

Top

21 December 2006

Eastport couple criticized for role in LNG dispute — Bangor Daily News, Bangor, ME

Controversy over a proposal to build a multimillion-dollar liquefied natural gas facility at Split Rock on tribal land has developed into allegations that the Godfreys have overstepped their bounds by speaking about tribal culture, history and spiritual issues when talking about the impact LNG will have on the reservation.

"They are hijacking the Passamaquoddy culture and using it to achieve their end," a former tribal councilor, who asked not to be identified, said Wednesday.

Top

19 December 2006

Ottawa should not lower the boom on Maine's LNG plans [Downeast LNG's registered Canadian lobbyist's opinion] — Globe and Mail, Ottowa, ON

Two of the Canadian projects have received approvals and a third is undergoing environmental assessment. The U.S. projects are about halfway through their exacting approval processes.

The leading U.S project, Downeast LNG, at Robbinston, Maine, has been preparing to launch, quietly, for about three years.

So, what's the problem?

Ottawa has threatened to block water access to both Maine projects.

At the same time, it is endorsing similar projects in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec. Unless we can find a way of levelling the playing field again, the crucial energy co-operation between Canada the U.S. will be damaged — potentially hurting both economies. (Dec 17)

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Roland Priddle, Downeast LNG's hired Canadian lobbyist who wrote the above opinion, wants us all to share his interesting imagination. And now, for the truth:

The two US projects referred to aren't "halfway through the exacting approval process." In fact, Downeast LNG hasn't even begun the approval process. They've been engaged in the "pre-filing" process, that is informal and assigns no approval decisions by FERC.

Downeast LNG isn't the leading U.S. project. In fact, it began after Quoddy Bay LNG, and still lags in the process.

Priddle's comparison of shipping petroleum from Portland, Maine to Canada and the LNG projects in Passamaquoddy Bay is ludicrous. If Maine or the US opposed shipping oil from Portland, the US would simply stop providing the petroleum at that port. The US is supplying the petroleum product to Canada. Canada won't be supplying the LNG to the US.

Canada isn't objecting to US terminal locations that don't threaten Canadian citizens or Canadian assets. A true "level playing field" would be for the US Government to recognize this threat, and to refuse consideration of such sites. Canada has shown more intelligence in this matter than the US LNG developers and the irresponsible FERC process that even considers such folly.

Top

16 December 2006

Quoddy Bay LNG applies for gas terminal permit — Bangor Daily News, Bangor, ME

"Neither project has any chance of actually succeeding. Both have insurmountable obstacles," wrote Bob Godfrey, spokesman for the Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance, in an e-mail sent to the Bangor Daily News this week. The Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance is opposed to both LNG projects.

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: FERC's "cart-before-the-horse" procedure has allowed Quoddy Bay LNG (QBLNG) to file their formal application, even though QBLNG hasn't answered over a score of questions from FERC related to the required draft Resource Reports. The answers to those questions are critical information that FERC needs in order to make an informed decision on allowing the formal filing to continue.

Here are some of QBLNG's problems:

QBLNG doesn't have a valid lease agreement for the land it needs for its project, and by all indications is unlikely to get it;

QBLNG won't be able to pass State of Maine permit requirements;

QBLNG will violate international environmental treaties;

QBLNG has serious terminal safety and security problems;

QBLNG's proposed terminal location violates SIGTTO LNG-industry standards;

Canada refuses to allow LNG ship transit into Passamaquoddy Bay;

QBLNG doesn't have "innocent passage" ship transit priviledges;

QBLNG would have to go through Canadian courts, and then international courts to fight Canada's refusal to allow LNG ship transit — a lenghty procedure that would even further moot QBLNG's project;

QBLNG is a late-comer to the industry;

LNG infrastructure is being over-built by 400% in the Northeast, so QBLNG is already outmatched and outnumbered by its competition;

Saint John, New Brunswick's Canaport LNG terminal is currently under construction, and will be in operation in 2008. That project, alone, will be initially supplying 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (expandible to 2 billion cubic feet per day). Along with the offshore terminals in Massachusetts, and other projects already in the permitting process, QBLNG is a waste of effort;

According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency, the LNG import facilities already being permitted and constructed will more than supply the additional national natural gas demand through the year 2030, again meaning that the QBLNG project is not needed;

US LNG import facilities have been operating at only 50% capacity, indicating a smaller supply and demand than the industry wants the public to believe, also indicating that QBLNG is not needed;

Other countries are willing to pay more than the US for LNG, making supply difficult to obtain — even resulting in LNG shipments destined for the US to be diverted to other countries;

QBLNG doesn't have an LNG supply;

QBLNG doesn't have a natural gas customer, and finding one is improbable. The demand will already be met by the projects that are already way ahead of QBLNG. Even Downeast LNG President Dean Girdis told the public in 2005 that Downeast LNG may never get a customer.

Top

13 December 2006

Our vision for the future [Editorial] — Saint Croix Courier, St. Stephen, NB

What's more important — jobs or health?

Anyone who has lived near a chemical plant knows the answer. Ask the people who lived near to the Capper Pass smelting plant in Hull, England, if the high-paid jobs that led to all kinds of diseases among the children of the area were worthwhile in the long run. Ask the people of Chernobyl.

A $100,000 a year job and a child with leukemia, or a different, $50,000 a year job, and a healthy child? You make the call. (Dec 12)

Top

12 December 2006

Alliance challenges FERC practices — Quoddy Tides, Eastport, ME

SPB claims that the federal agency has been hiding liquefied natural gas (LNG) hazards from the public for nearly 30 years; has been disseminating misleading LNG safety information to the public, while encouraging LNG developers to do the same; and has been ignoring LNG-industry world standards. (Dec 8)

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: It's time FERC's negligence is rectified.

Top

8 December 2006

Town donates to Save Passamaquoddy Bay — Saint Croix Courier, St. Stephen, NB

Council agreed to grant $3,000 to SPB Canada to assist them in their fund-raising and the money will come from the town's LNG funds.

During councillors' comments Councillor Mike Craig said he hoped that the people of Passamaquoddy Bay will be successful in slaying this LNG dragon in 2007.

Top

6 November 2006

Emergency Prevention and Response Update — Quoddy Bay LNG Newsletter, Perry, ME

[C]oncerns have been raised about the cost to local communities regarding public safety associated with the LNG facility. Quoddy Bay will pay all the additional costs associated with safety and security. The ERP is the process by which we identify the need for new assets, personnel and infrastructure Quoddy Bay will provide to local communities in order to equip the region to properly handle the project’s operations. [Bold emphasis added.] (Dec issue; PDF, 1.8 MB)

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Quoddy Bay LNG is blowing smoke:

FERC requires LNG developers to come up with a "Cost Sharing Plan" (but FERC doesn't actually require any set amount of payment ) related to safety and security of the LNG facility, itself; however, the developer isn't required to pay for any safety and secutiry costs outside the facility confines, other than for marine vessels servicing the LNG project. Furthermore, FERC doesn't even address payment for required emergency capabilities outside the project confines — that's left entirely to agreement between the developer and the affected communities. Besides, in the above promise, they state they'll only equip the region to handle the PROJECT'S operations;

Without a written and signed contract, Quoddy Bay LNG's promises are promises without substance. Even if they were to provide a written contract, that's no guarantee that they'll pay what they promised — look at the "land lease" they supposedly have with Tribal Government. They've owed the Pleasant Point Passamaquoddy Tribal Government on their lease, now, since 2005 December — one full year — but haven't paid a cent. Instead, they keep telling Tribal officials that both Tribal governments (Sipayik and Indian Township) need to waive Tribal taxes on the LNG project before they'll pay what they owe on the lease. With Quoddy Bay LNG, even a signed lease agreement apparently isn't enough.

Suez Energy North America Inc., subsidiary of a Paris-based utility giant, has submitted an application to the U.S. Coast Guard to build undersea natural-gas terminals 8 and 10 miles off the coast, as well as a submerged pipeline to carry the fuel to Florida power plants. The network of buoys, anchors, turrets and pipes -- termed a deepwater port -- is intended to allow ships to offload without approaching land, reducing the chance of fuel spills, fires or explosions.

[The National Marine Fisheries Service] said it wanted more information on fish larvae, eggs and plankton that would be sucked into the ships' engine-cooling systems. [Bold emphasis added.] (Dec 5)

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS: Yet another offshore terminal!

Unlike Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG, offshore LNG terminals eliminate risks to land-based civilian populations and assets.

The deal, common on major infrastructure construction projects, was reached Friday between Texas-based Excelerate Energy and the state, giving it environmental approval from the state. Excelerate proposes to build its Northeast Gateway terminal 13 miles off Gloucester.

Observers expect a similar agreement to be reached on the Neptune project proposed about 10 miles off Gloucester by the company that owns the Distrigas LNG terminal in Everett. That project is expected to get a final environmental decision from the state in about two weeks, and Romney's final decision is due by Jan. 2. [Bold emphasis added.]

WEBMASTER'S COMMENTS:

• Offshore siting removes the risks to civilians and civilian assets that land-based LNG terminals pose.
• Offshore LNG receiving terminals can be easily expanded, since there's open space around them.
• Navigation to the terminal is less risky than land-based terminals.
• Security is less of an issue with offshore terminals.
• Offshore submerged-buoy LNG terminals are more economical to build than shore-based terminals.
• Offshore submerged-buoy LNG terminals don't need protected harbors that land-based terminals require.
• Offshore LNG terminals near the natural gas market trump late-comer Maine projects.

Downeast LNG and Quoddy Bay LNG chose the wrong technology, the wrong location, the wrong strategy, and the wrong time for their projects. If they don't toss in their towels today, they'll be tossing in costlier towels tomorrow.